Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmakaraka

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atmakaraka[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due Lack of coverage in independent general media. Terminology from Fringe topic and Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given sources are books on WP:FRINGE theory (pseudoscience WP:PSCI). Article makes claims about human nature violating WP:MEDRS Venkat TL (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Where to begin with this nominsation? Well first of all, the page is an awfully written article, but that alone is not grounds to delete it. The FRINGE claim is hard to fathom, the topic is not a fringe theory of Vedic astrology. As far as I can tell, it is a mainstream concept in that field. Articles on pseudosciences such as astrology are not forbidden on Wikipedia, they are perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is treating them equally with the scientific consensus in an article. But this article does no such thing. Invoking MEDRS is just a complete nonsense. No medical claims are being advanced. Would we accept FRINGE and MEDRS as reasons against Virgin birth of Jesus just because we don't believe in the concept? Of course not. NOTDICTIONARY, well yes, the article is NOT a DICTIONARY definition. Finally GNG, there are enough sources that verify this is a notable concept in Vedic astrology;
- Dinesh Shankar Mathur, Predictive Astrology: An Insight [1]
- Bangalore V. Raman, Studies in Jaimini Astrology, [2]
- K S Charak, Yogas in Astrology [3]
- Mridula Trivedi, T.P. Trivedi, R. Asthana, Astro Equations for Specific Professions, [4]
- "Moon as Atmakaraka: A Jaimini Appraisal.II", The Astrological Magazine [5]
- Komilla Sutton, Shodasha Varga: The 16 Divisional Charts of Vedic Astrology, [6]

SpinningSpark 14:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These books/publishers are neither WP:Mainstream nor independent of the subject of astrology, they are books on WP:FRINGE theory (Jyotisha i.e. Hindu astrology). Such sources cannot be used to gauge WP:GNG. Only those aspects with coverage outside the WP:NFRINGE sources are notable and this is not. Please see the old discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). For WP:MEDRS violation, please see the last line of the article. Quote: "'The Rasi and Nakshatra in which the Atmakaraka is placed plays an important role in deciding and determining your true nature ". This is nothing by WP:PSCI garbage. Venkat TL (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are you determining what is mainstream in astrology? It is as ridiculous to reject a book on astrology in an astrology article as it would be to reject a book on physics in a physics article. Reliable sources on science topics are written by scientists, reliable sources on astrology topics are written by astrologers (unless we're discussing evidence for whether it actually works or not). Your MEDRS argument is so laughable I'm not even going to try to reply to it. SpinningSpark 16:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). I could not explain it any better. In short, There is no mainstream in astrology. Only those aspects of Astrology that are covered in mainstream media (not related to astrology) are relevant enough to be covered on Wikipedia. And this is not one. Hence my nomination. If you disagree please present relevant sources from mainstream media and I will withdraw my nomination. Please read WP:NFRINGE too. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are really enough results in Google Books that make this subject notable. Shankargb (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shankargb passing mentions in books on fringe topic does not count as significant coverage that is needed for WP:GNG. If you have seen books on mainstream topics covering this in detail, then please share and I will withdraw my nomination. Venkat TL (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe coverage. The idea that we should accept books about astrology written by astrologers because we accept books about physics written by physicists is not tenable. Physics is a generally accepted mode of inquiry with clear standards for truth and falsehood. Astrology is not. Likewise, I would not accept a phrenologist's treatise on phrenology. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spark's excellent analysis and search for sourcing. I'd also support a redirect to Hindu Astrology if a sub-section was created there. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's already "Karaka (astrology)" dab entry on Karaka which redirects to Hindu_astrology#Bhāvas – houses where it is handled in a single sentence. Which I see as indication of it's non-notability (this is one among a list of karakas, as I understand it) Hemanthah (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant what another Wikipedia article says – that cannot be used as a guide to notability since Wikipedia is inherently unreliable by our own definition. The karakas referred to in that article are planet-house associations which are fixed associations. The subject of this article is about one of a different set of karakas; planet-zodiac sign associations. These are not fixed associations but vary from chart to chart depending on the position of the planets in the heavens. These are not discussed at all in Hindu astrology. SpinningSpark 09:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly pointing out that a dab and redirect exists where this might go and I wasn't clear, sorry. Atmakaraka, being one among a list of Karakas as Hindu astrology and other sources say, is IMO an indication of non-notability.

I've argued non-notability deeper in my delete comment. May be you could address that? In brief, if it is one among a list of Karakas, which themselves are attributes of planets and handled so in every source you listed in a couple of paragraphs of chapters on planets, it's hard to see it as notable. Hemanthah (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll expand at your main comment. I'll just say here that merging into an article on karakas in general is not such a bad idea. This article already goes off at a tangent and lists the other Chara karakas. It could be moved as is with a slight tweak to the lead sentence. SpinningSpark 17:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for much the same reasons as Gandanta. Sources from within the fringe bubble are not the reliable documentation we need in order to establish the notability of the topic and write about it in a properly encyclopedic way. And even if the notability of the topic were established, the text is in such a state that WP:TNT would be warranted. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see it covered as notable concept from the refs or the books Spark listed. There's no specific chapter for it, let alone for Karakas (this is one in a list of Karakas, I gather) in the books. Even the number of mentions is small - in 7 paras in >400 page Mathur book, for eg. The para in BV Raman book with Atmakaraka bolded is a dicdef (Trivedi and Sutton books are not used as sources anywhere on en-wiki, so I didn't check them)
- Mentions of Sanskrit terms in english books can't be used for GNG. For eg, BV Raman book shows 17 hits for Kendra - which just means center. It can't be used to conclude that Kendra is a notable concept in Jyotisha.
- From what little I could glean from this page, it is an attribute of planets. Books cover it as such - under chapters on planets. So I see this as having en-wiki entry for Gaseous or Dwarf - as specific to planets, apart from their general definition - which makes no sense. Hemanthah (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not an attribute of planets, it is more along the lines of aspect (astrology) in Western astrology, although I don't think "aspect" as such exists in Hindu astrology as far as I know. The information in my sources ultimately comes from Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra or some other similar ancient text. In that text it explicitly states that the Atmakaraka is the most important karaka, and some of my sources directly cite that passage. It is covered over two pages in this transcription (but to be fair, half of that is translation and notes.) SpinningSpark 17:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not linking to the relevant page in the source, I can't get that to work. It's on pages 317 and 318. SpinningSpark 09:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've got it. I'm trying to see if I can expand Hindu Astrology Planets and Bhavas sections and merge info in this page there, but the topic is dense for me, so it's taking a while. (If you or somebody else would like to do that, that'd be great too, please go ahead). Hemanthah (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief para under Hindu astrology#Grahas – planets.

It's not aspect - as the quotes from sources show. Some other chapters regarding angles have been translated as aspect, which also indicates that this refers to something else.

I still see this as similar to Kendra. Karaka, from Karana, meaning something that causes/produces. BPHS etc all use it in that sense. So I don't really see why the rest of this page needs to survive. Hemanthah (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG based on the sources linked by Spinningspark (talk · contribs). SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stub-ify I checked two of those sources, and there's nothing there beyond a definition. I removed all the unsourced material and was left with one sentence. I see no reason to delete that; Glossary of Hinduism is not a good merge target and Glossary of Hindu astrology is a redlink. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored that. I agree a lot needs to be done to make this into an acceptable encyclopaedia article, but that stubification completely lost the sense that the atmakara is one of the planets, let alone which one it is in a given chart. It completely lost the information that this is the most important of a number karakas. In short it turned a bad article into a meaningless one. It certainly should not have been done while the AfD was still ongoing. SpinningSpark 07:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
力 Powera, now you know why Stubify is not listed as an option on WP:AFDR. We are here to discuss the notability of the article. If the arcane word of fringe theory fails to garner more than a passing mention then it clearly fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. That is a sign to delete. See WP:NOTDICT. @Hemanthah has explained his opinion very clearly and I agree with his findings and suggestion. --Venkat TL (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.